I think the scariest thing about FEAR 2 is that I agree with 90% of what Yahtzee just said just by playing the Original game and the demo for Fear 2. Okay, and "Extraction Point". I also played Perseus Mandate, but got about 3 stages in and got bored and never did come back to it because it just felt pointless.

It might have something to do with the fact I didn't find either to be particularly scary. Not even the part in the movie theater where Alma grabs you. For me it was like "Oh, hi Alma! So, still on a rage fueled rampage?"

As much as I loved the review, I'm upset by the fact that it confirmed what I'd feared (haw haw, get it?)- FEAR 2 is just a cash-in, nothing more. I loved the original FEAR, skipped all the expansion packs (they had the stench of "quick money-grab" all over them) and cheered when I heard that Monolith was stepping up to make a proper sequel. Then I played the demo, was wowed by the falling embers in the opening scene, then started down a trail of doubt, sadness and eventual disgust. I was really hoping Monolith would put in the time and effort to advance SOMETHING about the game itself (besides the obvious, graphics, which in some ways actually seem inferior to FEAR to me), but it seems that they just rebuilt the original game, turned the fairly-effective psychological horror into overdone Hollywood-style blood'n'gore, and tossed it out the door.

you know hwat would have been better then quick time events? if they tell you to push alot of buttons but it actually doesn't do anything so while you clack away at buttons the seemingly invincible little girl is about to bite your face off.

Sweet. Can't wait to see what hotly anticipated game he's going to review this month... Fear 2? What the hell? Who has been anticipating this game, for god's sakes?Oh well, let's see what he has to say...Ah, quick time events, shooters aren't innovative, and survival horror is dead.Congratulations, Yahtzee. You have succeeded in being guilty of the very thing with which you accuse the gamemakers... rehashing the same material in the guise of something new.

heres 2 things id like to note :P"i wonder why the parents of these psycic litle girls never think of cutting their fucking hair" (4:42) Agreedand the thing about wanting a world without sequels the gaming world nowadays is so stupid that when you block out sequels some guy will just come change the name of the game and advance or go back in time a litle on weaponry and then continue the game like that

Crazyshak48:As for the sequel ban, there oughtta be an escape clause or something of that sort to allow only for good sequels (i.e. Half-life 2 or Mechwarrior 4), but otherwise, I agree entirely.

The first problem with doing sequels in the uncertainty of the sequel itself. Obviously, improvement would be a must, but would too much make the game "untrue" to its roots, if you believe in that kind of thing? Not enough wouldn't make it a true sequel, just a "Game 1.5", like Fable II (My own opinon, yours may differ). And there are cases like Sonic, who tries over and over again with different techniques, improvements (I use that term laxly), and stories, and they just don't sell. Or, examples like Call Of Duty (don't jump to conlusions just yet), that made bold, wonderful strides forward with "Modern Warfare", the undid all of it and then some by going back to WWII for "World at War". Sequels should be about innovation and moving forward, not repetition and backwards.

This is probably the first and only time I say this, but I completely disagree with Yahtzee on this one.

First on the matter that all sequels are bad is a ignorant statement. There are plenty of sequels I can think that were awesome. I think if Yahtzee really thought about it, I bet he would take back this statement.

Second, the fact that both Yahtazee and other complain that a sequel doesn't change from the first game is the worse critique I ever heard of. I bet that all of you who complain about redundant gameplay between the games would complain just as much if they completely redid the whole game and story. If a sequel had nothing in common with it's predecessor then it wouldn't be a sequel.

Third, Yahtzee you mentioned that having quick time events is okay so long as it is apart of the gameplay. Here you contradicted yourself from a previous video because in FEAR 2 the timed button mash events occur on more than one or two occasions which you said was okay if they did it through out the whole game. Well they did do it through the whole game and it works well.

So for once, I disagree with Yahtzee on this review. I am open-minded about things as I have agree with you on the other videos.

I liked FEAR 2 and the expansions sucked. I like Halo 3 and a few other games you have reviewed that were sequels and I am a generic player just like Yahtzee here.

Also to any of you, do you not realize that FEAR is a trilogy? I guess not, but it is like saying "Empire Strikes Back" had no closure.

Sometimes all you of people have the stupidest reasons for a critique. I can't stand people who complain that the second movie in the trilogy has no closure when they obviously know there is going to be another game after it. Do you people truly not see how stupid a statement that is?

I think that I hurt my self in some way when I saw the cover to Beyond Good and Evil when I laughed. That was a good game. Really good. But the ending screamed that there was going to be a sequal and... what happened? Nothing. Which is horrible. Worse than flipping off a box of kittens.

1.All games must exist with a clear end of plot, no matter how long the game must become. (We already pay $60-$70 American and im sure they have a little wiggle room with the profit margines)2.If a sequel must exist it must have its own original plot and add at least one significant inovation to the genre.3.Games can not be remade if they switch developer or if the development staff has a significant change of management. If a remake fails to achieve the qualities of a sequel and the acceptance of the fans the sequel will be not be acknolaged in existance and the series may never be touched again.4.NOs (ports,action-figures, clothing, conventions, ECT.)(the game who has come closest to obeying this code in good standing is halflife, the most defiant abuser of the lack of enforcement currently defiles the borders of your screen.HALO

cainx10a:"Remakes will carry the death penalty!" But but, what about the legion of uneducated nerds who never played FF7, can I has remake ? .

if they have played ff1 then they have all final fantasy games ever made. it like eating a mars bar, the packaging might change, but its still a fucking mars bar!!!

Except in the Final Fantasy games all the charaters are different and the story lines are totally different. Yes, the battle systems are a lot alike- but, there are other games with the same set up so I hardly see that as a valid point that they are all alike.

Saying they are all the same is like saying all fps are the same. Different wrapper- same game.

timetuner:1.All games must exist with a clear end of plot, no matter how long the game must become. (We already pay $60-$70 American and im sure they have a little wiggle room with the profit margines)2.If a sequel must exist it must have its own original plot and add at least one significant inovation to the genre.3.Games can not be remade if they switch developer or if the development staff has a significant change of management. If a remake fails to achieve the qualities of a sequel and the acceptance of the fans the sequel will be not be acknolaged in existance and the series may never be touched again.4.NOs (ports,action-figures, clothing, conventions, ECT.)(the game who has come closest to obeying this code in good standing is halflife, the most defiant abuser of the lack of enforcement currently defiles the borders of your screen.HALO

Halo? I think you're thinking of Street Fighter 2. That game IS a franchise.

cainx10a:"Remakes will carry the death penalty!" But but, what about the legion of uneducated nerds who never played FF7, can I has remake ? .

if they have played Wolfenstein 3D then they have all first person shooters games ever made. it like eating a mars bar, the packaging might change, but its still a fucking mars bar!!!

The idea of Remaking a game with the latest tech, both graphics or gameplay can be improved to attract people to a dying or old franchise. + for those who watched the Outro of FF7:Crisis Core; a lot of fan boys and people who never played FF7 would want to pick up the remake just to see what they missed in the past.

And I for one, got bored playing up to disc 4 on FF 7 with the old graphics when I tried it about a year ago.

Great review, plus I laughed a little harder cause I agree with most of it. Compared to F.E.A.R. 1, F.E.A.R. 2 isn't all that great. It's not a bad game, just not what I expected I guess.

I especially like how he pointed out the scares happening when you're not looking, because that's seriously happened to me like five times already. I hear something, my HUD goes all crazy, but I don't actually SEE anything happen and realize I wasn't looking in the right direction.

I also find it ironic that having Alma get right in your face this time around is actually LESS scary. She was scarier when you could barely see her in the distance, and then maybe she'd come up to you in that whole "I'm ten meters away from you, now I'm RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, and now I'm gone" way, your vision so blurred that you couldn't really make out what her face looked like. Now she jumps on you and you punch her off.... and I dunno if it's just me, but it makes me feel a lot more like I'm playing Condemned.

Some of my favorite games were sequels so I can safely say that outlawing sequels would be a bad idea.

Have you ever started at a franchise at one of it's later installments, like 2nd 3rd or 4th part? Have you ever then gone back to the earlier installments and then think that the old ones stunk in comparison to the sequels you've played first (Yahtzee said he has)? That's why outlawing sequels would be a bad idea.

Wait, wait waitaminute. Good sequels are a SMALL sacrifice? Uh Yahtzee, you do know that Earthbound is technically a sequel right? You call that a SMALL sacrifice? Just think about it.

I think the real problem is that we shouldn't go without sequels, we should just try to contain them and utilize them properly. A world without sequels would not be a wonderful world in my eyes Yahtzee. It'd be a double-edged sword and one that I wouldn't take a risk on.

The other FEAR games were for consoles idiots, I know this becauase I own the other FEAR games for Xbox 360. Of course Yahtzee gives out the impression that us console gamers are all a bunch of mindless twats who don't know anything about video games.

Lets not forget that Yahtzee is not a real game critic just a comedian.

A world without sequels? Are you lot fucking serious? Why shouldn't a developer be able to try and improve on a previous product? Can you imagine if Henry Ford said "Well, i've made one car. No need to make an improved version of it." People complain about developers "money-grubbing"..... well, here's a newsflash! Game development is a fucking business!! And if the sequel that comes out is rubbish? Then don't buy it! No one's forcing you to! Do you really think it's THAT easy to just come up with an original idea for EVERY video game? Game development would have either stopped, or be reduced to a trickle of about 3 games a year!So yeah, sometimes sequels don't work out. But if it wasn't for the bad games, we wouldn't appreciate the good ones. Sequels only happen because people want them. If they didn't want them, they wouldn't pay for them.

Actually, the cloned soldiers are ment to be controlled by Alma's children, but only one is fit to do so, and after he dies she has no choice to, which seems kinda ironic since as her son you have to go around fighting them Extraction Point.

And the quick-time event used to defeat that Colonel is SO FUCKING ANNOYING.